Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Chris troutman

Status: Completed

Date Started: 18 June 2013

Date Ended: 11 July 2013

Recruiter: Ed!

Hey Chris! I'd be glad to help mentor you in the Good Article process. Just to get started, let me know what kinds of articles you'd like to start reviewing and if you have any questions about the WP:GA process, and we can get started from there. —Ed!^(talk) 00:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a history major, so I'd like to focus on articles of historical import. I requested your mentorship specifically because of your activity with WP:MILHIST. I think I understand the process. My concern is that the criteria are clear about what cannot be accepted, but not as clear on what qualifies as "sufficiently broad." I've been hesitant to rate articles for B-class because it's hard to know if the article "reasonably covers the topic" without doing some serious research. I'd be glad to get your help so I can pitch in on this project. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I know a lot of people think of that as sort of a barrier to entry on reviewing articles; if they're comprehensive enough. Fortunately, GA has pretty reasonable expectations on that kind of thing. Well, would you like to jump into it and we can review an article? —Ed!^(talk) 12:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm ready to begin. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Since it sounds like you get the procedural part of things, what I'll do is review two or three different kinds of MilHist articles and explain the reviews here. Then you can ask a few questions and I can observe you do a review or two, after that. Will post reviews in the next day or so. —Ed!^(talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews by Ed!

It might surprise you that good articles actually have a simpler standard than you might expect. If you read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, you'll see a lot of common mistakes people make in GA reviews. I still spot mistakes I make, too. The process is actually intended to be more of a simple check to make sure the major stuff is there. The nice thing about military history topics is there is a review process to get the article to A-class, which is where there are a lot of military veterans and military historians who take a tougher look at the articles to make sure every bit of detail is there. At GA, it's more about making sure a layman can read the article and understand all of the major details.

Other than that, of course it's a good idea to read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and the instructions. If you have any questions about those, let me know. —Ed!^(talk) 02:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian battleship Regina Elena: Talk:Italian battleship Regina Elena/GA1

Ship articles that come to GAN are often in pretty good shape. There are a lot of people who have a lot of experience writing about these articles. On the other side, though, they need to make sure the article is still readable by the layman.
The article will usually have a "design" section and a "service history" section, as this one does. "Design" can be filled with a lot of naval jargon, so make sure they link each term. The first details of "design" should probably concern length, width, depth and weight of this ship. The editor forgot to link one of them, so I reminded him. There are a few other terms the average reader might not understand so I asked him to clarify those, too.
Other than that, the details of the "design" section don't have to be very long. It should probably have info about engines, speed, armament, armor, and crew complement, as a bare minimum. This article has the basics, but it's also a shorter article so that isn't really a problem. A lot of the more detailed information about ship design is often put in the ship class article for that ship, and ships tend to have a lot of design modifications over the course of their lifetimes, and that information is usually found further down in the article.
While you're looking at the "design" section, check the Infobox to make sure the numbers provided in "design" match up. A lot of times the infobox will have been copied from another page by someone else and the nominator will have forgotten to check it. In this case, I spotted one disparity.
When you're reading through the service history, you're basically checking to see that the article reads smoothly and that all of the ship's history is covered. Ships tend to spend a long time on little-documented training cruises, and then get a lot of coverage during wars. In this article's case, I suggested a few points to improve readability but the history of the ship from when it was built to when it was taken apart is basically accounted for.
Finally, I check for a bunch of little things before placing the article on hold:
- Make sure the external links are working, and there aren't any disambiguation links that could mess up the readability of the article. These can be checked in the toolbox that automatically appears in the top right of the review page.
- Make sure there aren't any copyright violations in the images, click on all of their pages and see if there's info about if we can legally use them on this page.
- Check to make sure the article has neutral wording and look at its history to make sure there aren't any edit wars currently going on over it.
- Lastly, check some of the sources, if you can, to make sure they say what the article says they do. In the case of this one, all of the info is sourced to offline books, but you can check a few of the websites and the links of the books in the bibliography to make sure they say what they're supposed to. —Ed!^(talk) 03:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Newall, 1st Baron Newall: Talk:Cyril Newall, 1st Baron Newall/GA1

Military biographies come in a lot of different sizes and levels of detail. This fellow happens to be well-covered, and doesn't conform to the stringent WP:BLP guidelines, so that does make things easier.
Something about the person's early life and background should be explained. Parents, birthday, and where they grew up should be a bare minimum. I've reviewed articles about prehistoric military figures who don't have family or birth information, but one way or another, there should be some kind of cited information about where the person came from, or else a cited explanation for why it isn't there.
Sourcing is even more important in military biographies, because a lot of personal details are harder to figure out. Make sure the anything you didn't already know about the person is cited, which is basically everything. Also, read closely to make sure there aren't any opinions. When you're done, check the sources with more scrutiny, as non-neutral sources and wording tend to be more of a problem in articles about people. Notice I spotted a few incidents of what reads like opinion or weasel wording here.
As with before, check to make sure all of the person's military service is accounted for in the article. A lot of times it will be hard to find out about what a person did after they retired, but all of the military service should be pretty well covered without any missing spots that aren't explained and cited. All promotions should probably be there, as well as units the person commanded.
And, again, check all of those minor things at the end of your read-throughs, as I did above.
Decorations and honors are kind of controversial on Wikipedia right now. If they're on the article, make sure they're sourced. If not, don't worry about them. —Ed!^(talk) 03:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews by Chris troutman

Look over these reviews, and let me know here if you have any questions with the reviews or how I approached something, and I can tell you from my experience. —Ed!^(talk) 03:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your guidance on how many sources I should verify? The article about the Regina Elena relies on published works not available online. I might be able to find some of these at the library but I understand this GA process is ideally done in seven days. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. I would look at four or five. In this case, you can check a few of these books on books.google.com. I would just find the book there, use the search keyword and check to make sure what's cited appears on the page. Pages with web links are easier, of course, but one way or another, AGF that you don't have to check all of the sources. —Ed!^(talk) 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've started looking at HMS Medway (1928). It cites four books, none of which are available online and only one of which is available in my area. I'll go get that one book, but I might not be able to find other sources to verify the rest of the info. I know I can AGF and I'm pretty sure this info is accurate, but that's not certainty. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The one book should be fine. Checking sources is mainly to make sure none of them are made up. As long as you can confirm the editor knew what he was doing and cited correctly, it's OK to AGF the rest of the references. I'll note that scrutiny is significantly higher at ACR and FAC level where most references should be looked through, but at GA it's mainly a test to make sure it was done correctly and isn't blatantly inaccurate. —Ed!^(talk) 20:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Sir Newall uses many newspaper accounts. Is there any issue with this since they are primary sources? I don't think there's any 'novel interpretation' here but journalism isn't considered a secondary source. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. No, the newspaper is a secondary source. It contains accounts of the people involved, but the newspaper itself vets the info for accuracy (or is supposed to, at least) so unless the information comes from an opinion quote, it can be used as-is. —Ed!^(talk) 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The GA criteria only specifies the presence of a level 2 header. Independent of subject coverage do you have a rule of thumb for article length? It seems like A-class and FA's are always north of 50k in size. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:SIZE has some details, but generally, the articles you're dealing with will be less than 50K. If they're 100K or longer I would suggest you ask the person if they have any means of splitting the article, but some pages -- especially heavily covered ones like George S. Patton or United States Marine Corps are just never going to be below that. —Ed!^(talk) 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I differ on point about Lord Newall and his "remarkable" physical courage. Isn't his citation for the Albert Medal exactly the remark about his physical courage that makes it remarkable? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Terms like "remarkable" give a tone of impartiality to the article. Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible. Yes, he was awarded the medal for the action, but it would be better to let the medal citation speak for itself, so remarkable should either be in quotes and attributed to the citation or removed altogether, so it doesn't look like we're "praising" anything. —Ed!^(talk) 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you're ready, find a nomination from someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central who has agreed to recruitee reviews, here if possible. Then, you can start a review and I can walk you through any questions in the process here, while you conduct the review. —Ed!^(talk) 03:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've selected HMS Medway (1928). I've notified the user in question and will be starting immediately. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed HMS Medway (1928) as a GA. I was able to verify one of the sources, the image used meets guidelines, etc. I followed the instructions for updating the rating on the talk page, adding to the GA list, and notifying the nominator. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've gone about the process in the right way. Good work! It would be good on the review to make a note of the things you checked and so on, even if nothing needs fixed, the review will be archived and it will be good for other users to know what you checked. I would also put a line in at the end of the review once it passes to let the person know, and to complete the record on the page that it did, in fact, meet the standards. OK, so go for another review and I can observe again. —Ed!^(talk) 18:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the comment onto the review as you've asked. I'm stuck between choosing Jefferson–Hemings controversy or Russian ironclad Sevastopol. Both were nominated by editors that will accept trainees. Sevastopol is a far smaller article but, as with HMS Medway, I can only get one of the sources. All of the sources on Jefferson-Hemings are accessible. Which do you think I should take? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say go for the ship. Shorter but easier to manage, for sure. —Ed!^(talk) 13:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, another editor already started the GA Review of Sevastopol. ~~I'll take Jefferson-Hemings.~~ Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khazar2 withdrew the Jefferson-Hemings nomination but has offered American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic in its place. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Post the review here when you start it, and I'll follow along. —Ed!^(talk) 20:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic/GA1 Per your request. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good so far on that review. Might want to add a note in at the NPOV line to make sure people know what you checked. Again, the reviews are helpful for people in the future who are going back to see if they need to take another look at things. —Ed!^(talk) 10:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looked great to me. I would say looking through the book was very helpful as it did help you spot something that might have been incorrect, but on the overall, people consider that to be above and beyond; I wouldn't suggest doing it if it's going to delay the review or anything. Procedurally, looks like you did everything correctly though. Well, what do you think? Do you have more questions, would you like to see/conduct a new review, or do you think you're ready to strike out on your own? —Ed!^(talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy, I'm happy. I feel ready to go on my own from here. I would like to know if the article standards are the same across the board. The GA review instructions say to update all the WikiProject talkheaders. When I've rated articles in the past in WikiProject History, I've left alone other WikiProjects (like books, Spain, etc.) since I'm not a part of those projects. Should all the project labels be the same or should they differ depending on which project member is doing the review? Also, is there an equivalent training process for A-class or is that the same process with tougher standards? Finally, after having reviewed American Creation should I nominate it for A-class or FA? I listed some issues to be resolved in the future but I'm not sure they would prevent further promotion. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your three questions, GA and FA are the two that apply to all projects, while the "letter grade" ratings A, B, and C only apply to projects individually. You'd add GA to every project. For A-class, there isn't a standard, every WikiProject in theory has its own A-class process. That one you'll have to watch an learn, as the requirements are significantly raised. Finally, it's generally up to the GA nominator or author to nominate for A- or FA- class. Well, OK then. Is that everything? —Ed!^(talk) 02:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that answers all my questions. Thanks for your help in this process. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]